Obříství, a Late Bronze Age Port of Trade in Central Bohemia

STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2, S. 71–95 obříství, alate Bronze age Port of trade in Central Bohemia Jiří Unger– Monika Pecinovská aBStraCt The paper discusses the Late Bronze Age in the site of Obříství, located in astrategic area defined by the confluence of Bohemia’stwo major rivers– the Elbe and the Vltava. Based on the extensive rescue excavati‑ ons which have been recently conducted; on the analysis of the Knovíz culture settlement development in the studied microregion; and on specific finds including fragments of raw amber, this site is considered as aprobable major centre of trade and of long distance contacts during the Late Bronze Age. kEywordS Late Bronze Age; Central Bohemia; Knovíz culture; trade and long distance contacts; amber. introduCtion Our area of interest is situated in Central Bohemia, 25 km north of Prague, close to the town of Mělník, at the confluence of the Czech Republic’stwo largest rivers, the Elbe and the Vltava. The dominant feature of this region, which lies in the Elbe lowlands in the area of the Elbe/ Vltava divide, is its flat terrain in which the altitude does not exceed 200msl. It is an area that has bothafavourable climate and an optimal amount of rainfall. The area is characterised pedologically by the presence of ablack earth soil ‑type of the highest quality, while in the immediate vicinity of the Elbe River, and specifically at the confluence of the two rivers, there are alluvial soils, and the bedrock mainly consists of Quaternary materials that were formed by the sedimentation that occurred in the Elbe and Vltava catchment area– i.e. in the form of river terraces, loess and sand drifts (Demek 1987, 348, 482; Neuhäuslováetal. 2004, 24; Tomášek 2007). As is evident from the above overview, this is avery convenient location for asettlement and the Mělník area is one of the most intensely populated regions of the Czech prehistory (Sklenář 1966). This text will focus mainly on the character and the development of the set‑ tlement in the timespan between the Late and the Final Bronze Age (Br D–Ha B3 according to Reinecke 1965), within the cadastral area of the municipality of Obříství and its immediate surroundings (see Fig. 6; Pl. 3/1). In this period it is possible to identify three major cultural complexes in Bohemia: in cen‑ tral, south and north ‑western Bohemia there is the Knovíz culture with the Final Bronze Age Štítary phase; while the Lusatian culture with its Final Bronze Age Silesian–Platenice culture phase occupies north and east of Bohemia; and the Knovíz ‑Milavče culture is characteristic of western Bohemia during the Late Bronze Age followed by the Nynice culture during the Final Bronze Age (Jiráň ed. 2008, 129). It is in the Mělník region that the contact between the two major cultural complexes takes place. In Ha A1, the Knovíz culture probably infiltrated in the north ‑western part of this settlement area to the then uninhabited right bank of the Elbe River, while items of the Lusatian culture can be found– on the contrary– on the left bank of the 72 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 Elbe River in its south ‑eastern part (Jiráň 1991, 116; Sklenář 1966, Tab.X, 298–303, Tab.XXX: 1130). In the following Ha A2–Ha B1 period the bearers of the Knovíz culture penetrated the Lusatian area as far east as to the Čáslav area and the Elbe River in Mělník area ceased to rep‑ resent anatural border between the two cultures (Jiráň 1991, 103; Jiráň ed. 2008, 131, Fig. 77). The manner in which this mutual confrontation actually took place remains unclear. However, as can be seen, for example, in the common settlement area located in Tišice (cf. Fig. 6 for the sites referred to in the text), it seems to have been an ongoing continuous peaceful transition rather than aviolent intervention to the Lusatian settlement in the newly occupied territo‑ ries (Jiráň 1991, 110–111). During several centuries ademarcation line was also maintained, including akind of “no man’sland”, that existed between the Knovíz and the Lusatian cultures, which suggests that there was aclear definition of and arespect for the individual territorial integrity of each of the two cultures that were essentially related (Bouzek 2006, 52). an ovErviEw of knowlEdgE rEgarding tHE oBříStví MiCrorEgion EARLIER FINDS The main settlement areas of the Knovíz culture in the area of interest were the drainage basins of both of the major rivers and of their tributaries. The link between intensive settle‑ ment and access to water resources is quite asignificant settlement factor and the only largely unpopulated location was the impassable and swampy area in the Elbe ‑Vltava alluvium (Jiráň 1991, 115). The vast majority of the earlier finds are dated, only generally, to the period of the Knovíz culture (for acomplete overview of the finds see Tab.1 and Pl. 3/1). The evidence of the earliest Tumulus/Knovíz cultures Transitional horizon (Br C2/Br D) is insignificant in the area of study, while at the confluence of two rivers it is represented only by finds in Chlumín and by the cremation grave in Zálezlice. Though in the larger context of the Mělník region, evidence of the Transitional Knovíz horizon (Br D) is somewhat more common, in the Obříství microregion pottery fragments dated to this period have, so far, only been sporadically doc‑ umented in Dušníky (Jiráň 1991, 93; Sklenář 1985, Tab.LXXII: 5–6, LXX: 17, LXVIII: 29). As far as the Early Middle Period of the Knovíz culture is concerned (Ha A1) there are virtually no references to any earlier finds in Obříství and its surroundings; only towards the time of its closure are there some traces of settlement activities at the Na Štěpáně site (Koutecký– Spurný 1999). Likewise, the previous excavations carried out in the cadastral area of the village brought almost no evidence of the rapid increase of population during the subsequent Late Middle Period (Ha A2) with the exception of the settlement in Tišice (Jiráň 1991, 96) and the hoard in Jenišovice (Kytlicová 2007, Tab.98, B– 105, A), both on the opposite river bank. The Štítary stage of the Knovíz culture (Ha B1–Ha B3) was also spotted only in settlement traces located mainly on the western edge of the village (Šmahelová 2009). RECENT INVESTIgATIONS In recent years, however, several large ‑scale excavations have been carried out in the studied region during which mainly the Late and the Final Bronze Age activities have been detected; other finds were also obtained during the supervision of smaller ‑scale construction pro‑ jects. This newly discovered information alters our previous knowledge on the character of the Knovíz culture settlement and points to significantly more pronounced activities of the bearers of this culture in the area. 73JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ The impetus for the first large ‑scale excavation that was conducted between the years 2008 and 2011, was the IDEASTAV development project for the construction of 64 residential buildings and of their access roads in the area between the municipality of Obříství and the localities of Dušníky and Semilkovice which had been, until then, utilised only for agri‑ cultural purposes (Čuláková– Fleková– Šmahelová 2014). The archaeological situations that were encountered comprised sunken features and the remains of acultural layer up to 100 cm thick. The settlement traces concentrated mainly in the north ‑western part of the area, while towards the south ‑east their incidence waned so that at the edges of this area they were almost completely absent. Atotal of 1475 features were documented on this site; the archaeological components encountered included aNeolithic settlement; Early Bronze Age burial activities; an intrusion from the Middle Bronze Age; the Late Bronze Age settle‑ ment features; the Hallstatt and the Roman eras; and also the Early Middle Ages (Popelka– Šmidtová eds. 2014). Due to the high number of intrusions, however, the vast majority of these features was generally only dated as belonging to prehistory or were even assessed as undateable (Čuláková– Fleková– Šmahelová 2014, 14). Even under these conditions, the most widely represented settlements were those of the Late Bronze Age, i.e. the Štítary phase of the Knovíz culture (Ha B1–Ha B3) with atotal number of 156 features found (Fig. 1 and 2 left). While other settlement horizons were published in aseparate monograph (Popelka– Šmidtová eds. 2014), an evaluation of the features pertaining to the Štítary phase will be provided in aplanned separate volume. For the purposes of this paper we will only mention the discovery of the layouts of two longhouses that were unearthed in the northern part of the area in question (Features Nos. 420 and 1482). Fig. 1: During the IDEASTAV excavation was discovered akiln with astoking area (features Nos. 1519 and 1520), in which four partially nested cups, very charred blocks of wood and astone slab handler have been preserved. 74 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 In the northern part of the area, the groundplans of one partial and one complete longhouse were found (see Fig. 2). In both cases they had an elongated rectangular shape with rounded corners that were defined by acontinuous perimeter trough. The width of the groundplans was within the range of ca. 6 m, while the length of the entirely preserved house was ca. 25 m and the depth of the preserved trough typically ranged between 0.2 and 0.6 m. Alarger number of postholes occurred in the area of the floor plan, both inside and outside of the trough. Their pertinence to the structure is, however, debatable due to the lack of datable material. Based on parallel with similar groundplans of buildings defined by aperipheral groove (e.g. Opatovice nad Labem, Turnov– Maškovy zahrady, Dahlen in Saxony) these houses are considered as belonging to the Late Bronze Age1 (for more on this topic see Sklenářová 2010). Another development project was initiated in 2011 on the opposite, i.e. the eastern, side of the municipality of Obříství, where the investor planned to build service roads and pro‑ vide utilities and anoise barrier for an entire new colony of family houses (summarised in Pecinovská 2014). Rescue excavation encountered 904 features and also aca. 100 cm thick cultural layer, which was excavated using asquare grid. The intensity of human presence in this area throughout the prehistory has been confirmed: the documented components include aNeolithic settlement horizon; the graves of the Corded Ware culture; settlement features from throughout the entire Bronze Age Period and also from the Hallstatt and the Roman eras. The most significant from amongst the dated features were those dated to the Knovíz culture to which nearly 200 features were attributed. Their processing is still in progress, but it appears that the settlement chronology here spans from the early Middle Period to the Late Period (Ha A1–Ha B3). Numerous settlement pits were documented, only the bottoms of which had survived and therefore they were relatively shallow; their rather common superposition attest to both the intensity and the continuity of settlement activities. No human remains were found in the pits. Lumps of raw amber were unearthed directly in the field in two features located in the north ‑eastern part of the excavated area and dated by the accompanying potte‑ 1 Similar long houses are, however, known in the Early Bronze Age Únětice culture as well. Fig. 2: On the left: the overall plan of the IDEASTAV excavation. On the right: adetail of the plan showing the groundplans of two Knovíz ‑culture longhouses. 75JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ ry finds to Ha A1 (Fig. 3; Pl. 3/2).2 In the case of Feature No. 374, there is avery tiny fragment that, moreover, comes from the upper layers of the feature’sfill and therefore we may most likely consider it redeposited. Feature No. 316 is more reliable in this respect because more fragments of raw amber were found that came from the layer just above its base (see Fig. 4). To determine their provenance the amber fragments were analysed by infrared spectroscopy and the resulting spectrum shows the characteristic values typical of the Baltic region and thereby, in both cases, their Baltic origin was confirmed (Fig. 8; Novotná 2015). In the summer of 2012, two Ha A1–Ha A2 cremation graves of the Knovíz culture were en‑ countered during dredging of trenches for utility lines (summarised by Brejcha 2013). This excavation took place to the southwest, adjacent to the large ‑scale excavations referred to above and the burials were located at adistance of ca. 300 m from the excavated settlement. The first of the graves contained atotal of 12 pottery vessels; the actual burial was placed in 2 Feature No. 316– apit of an irregular oval groundplan measuring 176 × 120 cm and with amax. depth of 48 cm– that contained fragments of pottery, animal bones, daub and river shells. In the bottom layer afew lumps of amber were encountered (the largest one 21.3 × 14.37 × 9.04 mm). Feature No. 374– apit of acircular groundplan with adiameter of 140 cm and with amax. depth of 96 cm, that disturbs another feature of uncertain age (Feature No. 414 with no finds); it has been disturbed by amore recent posthole (Feature No. 413) and contains fragments of pottery, animal bones and river shells. The amber lump (dimensions 7.52 × 4.92 × 4.35 mm) was encountered on its very top, laying on the surface of the topmost 0–20 cm layer. Fig. 3: The overall plan of the excavation in the eastern part of Obříství showing two pits (features Nos. 316 and 374) with finds of amber. 76 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 the central amphora whose fill contained also abronze pin with aflattened spherical head and asmall fraction of twisted wire. The second grave, the base of which was lined with several flat stones, contained seven vessels and the function of the urn was fulfilled by an amphora into which abronze pin with adouble ‑conic head had been placed. In addition to the already mentioned inventory, the first grave also contained aclaw of alarge carnivore, abrown bear (Ursus arctos, preliminary determination by R.Kyselý). The find of bear trophies among grave goods is arare phenomenon of the Bohemian Bronze Age, whereby the only published find is that of aburnt bear canine from the cremation grave in the barrow No. 6 of the Knovíz culture burial mounds in Levousy (Peške 1975, 628).3 We encounter this custom more frequently in later Germanic cremation graves (Kyselý 2005; Schönfelder 1994). The most recent large ‑scale excavation was carried out in 2012–2013 during the construction of the levees in Zálezlice. Apart of an open agricultural settlement from the late Middle period of the Knovíz culture has been documented (Ha A2–Ha B1; summarised by Unger 2015). In total, 123 sunken features were unearthed, the vast majority of which were silos or secondary refuse pits that were, in some instances, located in mutual superposition. As is typical of the Knovíz culture, human burials also took place in the settlement area. In some of the investigated pits as many as nine skeletal burials were unearthed, while in others only parts of bodies were found. In three instances, the bodies were obviously not in aritual position (cf. Fig. 7): At the 3 Throughout prehistory and also during the early modern age the bear was considered asacred and revered animal in all the different cultures; its attributes are also put into the context with shamanism (Pastoureau 2011). Fig. 4: Plans and selections of finds from the pits– features Nos. 316 and 374. 77JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ bottom of the Feature No. 31, an incomplete skeleton was lying on their left side, while in the Feature No. 69 the remains of two individuals were lying together. In the upper part of the Feature No. 28, there was ahuman skeleton of an individual under seven years of age placed on her/his left side, with arms and legs tight against the body, as if she/he had been dumped into the pit either tied ‑up or in aclosed bag. Agroup of five burials (Fig. 5) deviate from the known cases of inhumations in the Knovíz culture milieu in that the bodies are lain extended (either in east ‑west or north ‑south direction); that they are present as complete skeletons; that there are no signs of violence on the bones; and mainly, that the burials contained gravegoods, which comprise miniature vessels placed close to the head or directly beneath it, as was the case also with bronze artefacts in two instances.4 In the Bohemian Late and Final Bronze Age we know of several similar burials in settlement pits5 and it is impossible not to mention in this context also avery similar Knovíz culture grave with burial in astone cist from Holubice 4 Feature No. 5– apit of acircular layout, adiameter of 1.8 m and amax. depth of 55 cm. The skeleton is extended on his/her back with his/her arms held along the body and is lying in anorth ‑south direction; accompanied on the right side by abovine spine and an undecorated bowl without any handles; achild, infans III (11–13 years of age). Feature No. 12– apit with an irregular oval layout and dimensions of 1.5 × 1.4 m and amax. depth of 25 cm; only the very bottom of the pit was preserved. The skeleton is extended on her back and lying in an east‑ ‑west direction, with her arms alongside her body; aminiature urn was deposited under her head on the right side while beneath the head there was acast bronze flat ring of alenticular section; awoman, maturus II ‑senilis (over 50 years of age). Feature No. 19– apit of an unknown diameter, perhaps with acircular layout; only the very bottom of the pit was actually encountered. The position of the skeleton– an immature individual, infans III ‑juvenis (12–14 years of age)– was unclear since the burial had been damaged during the construction works. Beneath the preserved legs that were outstretched in the east ‑west direction, askeleton of adog and apart of asheep spine were deposited. Feature No. 28– apit of acircular layout and a1.7 m diameter, with concave walls and amax. depth of 0.7 m (SJ 28/532), which intersected ashallower pit (SJ 28/531). Burial 1– at adepth of 0.4 m askeleton on his/her left side in asignificantly crouched position; achild, infans II (2.5 to 3.5 years of age). Burial 2– at the bottom of the pit askeleton extended on his back with his arms along the body, lying in the north ‑south direction, aminiature conical bowl without handles was placed under his head; most likely aman, maturus II– senilis (over 50 years of age). Feature No. 122– apit of acircular layout and adiameter of 1.8 m, with concave walls and amax. depth of 0.7 m. The skeleton is lying extended on her back with her hands resting in her lap and lying in anorth‑ ‑south direction on athick layer of collapsed daub; equipped with two cups with handles by her left humerus, while above her head there was an S ‑shaped bowl and at her temporal bone she had abronze lock ring coiled from double ‑wire and beneath the head aflat cast bronze ring with alenticular section; awoman, adultus II– maturus I(35–50 years of age). 5 We can refer, for example, to agrave in Bořeň that contained aboar tusk and apart of acup with an inserted fragment of bronze sheet; to Chudoměřice near Bílina where the burial was equipped with aminiature container; to Lenešice near Louny with agraphiton coated cup; and to Žiželice near Žatec where asmall cup was found, while some skeletons buried in Prague–Hloubětín also had alarger number of grave goods (Bouzek– Koutecký 1980, 406). Askeleton burial in apit with aKnovíz tray vessel is known from Pojizeří, while other containers were found at the Mužský– Hrada site (however the skull is clearly dislocated there– Štiková 1981, 112–113). The male skeleton with bronze bracelets and two cups deposited by the head that date the burial to the Knovíz culture is known from the Hloubětín 1 site (Bouzek– Koutecký 1980, 409). V. Spurný, in his analysis of the skeleton burials of the Knovíz culture (Spurný 1948, 15) states that the skeletons deposited in the extended position with varying orientation and mostly with their arms along the body constitute ca. 25% of the 150 analysed graves. According to his observations the grave goods were included with the skeleton and most of these comprised only one or two containers (acup, abowl, acolander or arough cup with two handles), while the sparsely found 78 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 dating back to Ha A1/A2. In this grave the skeleton was stretched ‑out in the east ‑west direction, with the arms along the body. Aminiature vessel was placed to the left side of the skull with abronze pin nearby and aknife was laid beneath the head (Bouzek 1981, 124; Schmidt 1893). There are many other instances of similar treatment of the bodies of the dead that come pri‑ marily from Austria and from Germany.6 an Evaluation of tHE SEttlEMEnt arEa The map in Pl. 3/1 makes it clear that during the Late Bronze Age the left bank of the Elbe River was almost completely inhabited, particularly in the cadastral areas of the municipalities of Obříství and Libiš that collectively occupy an area of over 2.5 km 2 . For the earliest Transitional horizon of the Knovíz culture, evidence is somewhat sporadic and comes from outside the area of our interest. During the Early and the Late Middle Period, however, we can perceive agradual shift closer to the river, which was completed during the subsequent peak ‑period, when we can find settlement remains also on the opposite bank of Elbe as well as in the actual alluvial plain. During the Late Period the settlement probably expanded even further and stretched continuously for adistance of two kilometres along the elevated river terrace from the localities of Semilkovice and the Dušníky to those of Na Štěpáně and Libiš. The Knovíz culture burial grounds are located in the hinterland, away from the watercourses but they are encountered within adistance of several hundred metres from where the settlements were at that time. The settlements within the studied microregion have produced plentiful docu‑ bronze items generally included simple bronze rings, abracelet and/or apin, while in Kolín four weights were found around the skull (Spurný 1948, 16). 6 Lower Austria, Burgenland, Salzburg and the North Tyrol (Bouzek 1981, 124), the Unstrut group based in Thuringia and there were similar cases in the Francony ‑Palatinate, in Swabia and then also the Lower‑ ‑Mainland Urnfield groups (Smejtek 2011, 267). Specifically, for example, the grave from the Bronze Age in Biblis (Starkenburg), the skeleton extended in the west ‑east direction with avessel near his/her head and the skeleton burials with the grave goods deposited in astone cists from Köchen can be mentioned (Brunn 1954; Hennig 1970; Herrman 1966). Fig. 5: Inhumation burials in ritual deposition in the settlement pits in Zálezlice. 79JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ mentation related to the textile production (clay weights and whorls), basic food processing (querns and pestles), pottery production (see Fig. 1), and metallurgical activities (including numerous finds of slag from the new excavations, together with both pyrotechnological structures and tools).7 North of the microregion of interest, on the left bank of the Elbe River, it is possible to trace other adjacent settlement areas that are always spaced ca. two or three kilometres apart.8 These are attested by the excavations carried ‑out and the discoveries made in Hořín/Brozánky (Br D–Ha B: Sklenář 1982), Dolní Beřkovice (Br D–Ha B: Sklenář 1982) and Horní Počaply (Br D and Ha B: Malyková– Pecinovská 2010). tHE PoSition of oBříStví on tradE routES RIVER TRAFFIC AND TRADE Above all, its very position at the confluence of the two largest Czech rivers indicates the sig‑ nificance of the Late Bronze Age settlement of Obříství as acrossroads of the long ‑distance routes (Fig. 6; Pl. 3/1). This position in regard to both the land and river transport could also be indirectly confirmed by local finds of bronze swords in the Elbe River (Fredengren 2011, 124). Abronze flange ‑hilted sword dated to the Late Bronze Age (Ha B) was discovered during dredging of the riverbed on the eastern bank, ca. 100 m above the mouth of the Košátecký Creek (Zápotocký 1969, 304). Another bronze flange ‑hilted sword was dredged in the mid‑ dle of the river near Obříství, ca. 500 m below the weir in the location where the original river arm joins today’sriver in the direction from Dušníky; also this sword is dated to the Late Bronze Age (Ha B; Zápotocký 1969, 304). Some time prior to 1879, two Late Bronze Age full ‑hilted bronze swords of the Liptov type were picked out of the Elbe River near Mělník (Ha A–Ha B1; Zápotocký 1969, 304–305). According to the inventory of river finds, there was an obvious peak of the depositing of bronze items in the Elbe River in the Late Bronze Age.9 Their concentration in the stretch of the river passing through the microregion of interest is remarkable, because over the entire distance between Litoměřice and Děčín other such finds are scarcely known. Well ‑known, however, is the hoard of bronze items beneath Křížový Hill, near Libochovany where the Elbe River flows into the Porta Bohemica gorge. The hoard comprised atotal of 90 items, 22 of which were swords (eleven flange ‑hilted– Ha A; three full‑ ‑hilted of the Liptov type– Ha A2; two Tachlovice type swords– Ha B1 and six indeterminable blades; Zápotocký 1969). Many of these items from Ha A1–Ha B1, predominantly from Ha A2, were manufactured in the Carpathian Basin or in northern Germany (Jiráň ed. 2008, 243). Hoards of this type are generally interpreted as either acollective sacrifice of spoils of war and their deposition at sacred places, which is supported by reports of ancient authors and is also documented in regard to the Celts (Filip 1959, 141), or as proofs of ashipwreck or of an unintentional loss of cargo in the course of river transport. Generally, however, depositing 7 It is likely that during the excavations in Zálezlice astone ore crusher was found. It is an oval quartz roller, 10 cm in diameter, with adepression at its centre and with grey ‑reddish discolouration on its surface caused by contact with fire. For this type of equipment which can be found in large quantities in the mining and metallurgical centres that are dedicated to European prehistory, their prior use in the processing of ore was confirmed by an analysis of the working traces that were found to contain preserved copper oxides (Hamonetal. 2009; Webb 2015, 27, 31). 8 For microregion settlement strategy of the Late and the Final Bronze Age see Smrž 1986. 9 In regard to the issue of the depositing of bronze items in an aquatic environment during the Urnfield Period see for example Hansen 1991. 86 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 covert or overt alliances than having to constantly maintain centralised control (Trigger 2003). It is therefore perhaps possible to deduce that the relative independence of traders, producers and artisans on political elites (Shennan 1993, 68) could lead to the creation of places with concentration of secondary production, competition, innovation and development (Oka– Ku‑ simba 2008, 364). Analyses of various economic systems– from the Bronze Age Mesopotamia to the 19 th century West Africa– have shown that placing too much emphasis on socio ‑political inclusion and/or on the control of pre ‑modern economies is erroneous (Lynn 1992). From this perspective, the high concentration of evidence on bronze working in the mi‑ croregion of Obříství and its surroundings would not be at all accidental. There are 13 stone casting moulds documented at six different sites in Central Bohemia in the Br D–Ha A1 horizon, with the strongest concentration to the north of present ‑day Prague,22 while in the Ha B2–B3 horizon there are 32 casting moulds documented at six different sites in Central Bohemia, of which the total of 27 from the broader area of the Vltava/Elbe confluence and large collections were also found in Vepřek and Zvoleněves (Ernée– Smejtek 1998).23 All the mentioned finds are related to lowland settlements and the map in Fig. 6 makes it clear that the find ‑spots of these casting moulds are spread within aradius of 20 km from Obříství, i.e. roughly the distance of aday’swalk. The hoards that concentrate on the left bank of the Vltava River in the indicated transect date back mainly to the Late Bronze Age.24 It is the localisation of the most frequent proofs of metallurgy during the Late Bronze Age in the north ‑western and Central Bohemia that could bear witness to the functioning of river routes– the Elbe and the Vltava Rivers– along which metals were transported, since long ‑distance trade routes have always been lined with associated specialised processing districts (Chvojka– Menšík 2014; Kelly ‑Bucellati 1990). ConCluSion Based on the evidence presented above, we are inclined to regard the Knovíz culture settlement in Obříství as an important point of long ‑distance contacts during the Late Bronze Age. Its actual location at the confluence of the two largest Czech rivers that constitute natural communication axes in Bohemia, along with the finds of bronze swords in the Elbe River and its alleged ford, might be an indication that at that point of time Obříství represented an important communi‑ cation node. Its origins can be placed to Ha A1, when asteep increase of population throughout the entire microregion can be observed. It is also to this period that the finds of raw amber from the settlement are dated and in which the Jenišovice hoard was deposited, containing– besides an amber bead– also 14 bronze cups with hammered decoration of the Jenišovice–Kirkendrup type, which appeared at that time across awider swathe of European territory (Kytlicová 1959, 153). Also striking is the burial rite in the settlement pits in Zálezlice from Ha A2–Ha B1, which have analogies in areas from where, precisely during this period, Alpine copper was transported further north. In the Ha B1–Ha B3 period, the heyday of the Elbe route in the European trade, the 22 Suchdol, Úholičky. 23 Two crucibles are reported from Brozánky near Obříství in the wider Br D–Ha B horizon. The other finds are dated to the Late Bronze Age (Br D–Ha A) in only ageneric manner and are represented by two moulds from the eponymous site Knovíz near Slaný and by one mould from Přemyšlení near Prague and also one from Tuchlovice. 24 Horizons: Plzeň ‑Jíkalka (Br C2/D)– Mělník; Plzeň ‑Jíkalka/Lažany (Br D)– Statenice; Lažany (Br D)– Stehelčeves, Velvary; Lažany ‑Suchdol (Br D/Ha A1)– Budihostice, Královice; Středokluky (Ha A2)– Středokluky; Jenišovice (Ha A2/B1)– Jenišovice; Třtěno/Hostomice (Ha B3)– Jarpice (Kytlicová 2007; Smejtek– Lutovský– Militký 2013). 87JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ population density in Obříství reached its peak, while in its wider hinterland it is possible to trace the most outstanding concentration of metallurgical production in Bohemia during that time. The fact that the area of the confluence of the Vltava and the Elbe Rivers maintained its privileged position on long ‑distance routes is illustrated by the finds of elite items and imports during the subsequent period. The presence of distinguished individuals from the Late Hall‑ statt and the Early La Tène periods is confirmed by the skeleton graves with iron leaf crowns from nearby Vliněves, two bronze Etruscan bowls from the cremation grave in Hořín and aanthropomorphic bronze fitting from adrinking horn that came from asettlement pit in the same site (Chytráček 2015). ABylany culture cremation grave from the Hallstatt period that was documented this year in Obříství contained atiny fragment of amber (R.Brejcha, per‑ sonal communication). Another Bylany culture cremation grave from nearby Uhy contained the first meander decorated vessels in Bohemia (Jiráň– Moucha 1992). Other categories of rare imported items found in an important regional Late Hallstatt centre of Minice– either with elite residential function or acult site– include the oldest pottery vessel in Bohemia, produced on potter’swheel originating in the Carpathian Basin and also four twigs of sea coral from the Western Mediterranean (Trefný– Slabina 2015). Sea coral was also found in the La Tène settlement pit in Zvoleněves (Moucha 1980). Earlier extraordinary sporadic artefacts directly from Obříství, from the rich Germanic cremation graves, include Roman stamped bronze pan, fittings of adrinking horn, gold brooches with bulbous buttons or ahead of aterracotta statuette (Beneš 2013). N° Cadastral area Position Dating Finds Bibliography 1Obříství Dušníky Ha B Large scale excavation IDEASTAV 2008–2011 Popelka– Šmid‑ tová eds. 2014 2Obříství plot n° 75/1 Ha A1– Ha B Large scale excavation 2011 Pecinovská 2014 3Obříství Ha A1– Ha A2 Two cremation burials Brejcha 2013 4Zálezlice Pod Zálezli‑ cemi Ha A2– Ha B1 Large scale excavation 2012–2013 Unger 2015 5Chlumín Na Višňov‑ ce Br C2 / Br D In 1937 (without any additional excava‑ tion circumstances) discovery of amas‑ sive graphiton coated cup with acylin‑ drical neck of the Lovosice type, charac‑ teristic of Central and Western Bohemia Sklenář 1966, tab.XI, 315 6Chlumín Br C2 / Br D Acremation grave containing atotal of four vessels found near Zálezlice during the excavation of the road to Chlumín in 1921; its bronze inventory comprised two massive cast (and open) grooved bracelets of the Stehelčeves type, remains of elliptical trays with ahandle, apin with aseal head and apin with aprofiled ribbed head, aspi‑ ral rosette and fractions of twisted wire Čermák 1921, 140– 141; Jiráň 1991, 92 7Zálezlice within the municipa‑ lity Br D– Ha A An undocumented intervention prior to 1983; afraction of an amphora vessel Archive ARUP 88 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 N° Cadastral area Position Dating Finds Bibliography 8Jenišovice Ha A2 / Ha B1 The hoard that was ploughed ‑out in the field in 1897 comprised atotal of 205 bronze items including various but‑ tons, rings, tubes, torcs, sickles, lids with plastically articulated centres, he‑ lically wound armlets, shield bracelets with dotted decoration, two spiral ro‑ settes, alarge phalera with hammered decoration, aknife with adecorated back and blade, shield buckles with engraved and hammered decoration and– in particular– 14 bronze cups decorated with hammered decoration of the type Jenišovice ‑Kirkendrup. The hoard also contained abarrel ‑shaped amber bead Kytlicová 1959, 146, tab.11, 12:1–2, 13, 14:2; Kytlicová 2007, 267–268, tab.98B; Píč 1897; Stocký 1928, tab.XLVI–XLIX 9Mělník Elbe River Ha A– Ha B1 Two bronze swords of the Liptov type were picked–out from the Elbe River near Mělník prior to 1879 Sklenář 1982, 245, 73/9C; Sklenář 1994, 53; Zápotocký 1969, 304 10 Mělník Tyršova Street Br C2 / Br D Ahoard discovered in 1940, during the repairing of aroad that comprised four fragments of sickles with vertical pins, two fragments of sickle blades, afrac‑ tion of the middle part of an axe, atri‑ angular pendant with aloop and three lumps of raw material Kytlicová 2007, 284, tab.41:B; Smejtek– Lu‑ tovský– Militký 2013, 214 11 Obříství Elbe River Ha B Abronze flange hilted sword was dredged from the middle of the river ca. 500 m below the weir at the point where the original river arm joins to‑ day’sriver in the direction from Duš‑ níky Zápotocký 1969, 304 12 Obříství ULabe Br D– Ha A Shards of storage jars and coars small vessels were found in 1926 during the excavation of awell Sklenář 1966, tab.XXX, 1135 13 Obříství house n° 25 Br D– Ha A An oval settlement pit with dimensions of 200 × 90 cm, that contained afrac‑ tion of ahuman skull, animal bones, 28 clay weights of troncoconical sha ‑ pe with an indentation on their upper surface, which apparently stood in an ash layer at adepth of 100 cm and lined the longer sides of the perimeter of the trench Lüssner 1886–90, 168–169 14 Obříství Br D– Ha A Animal bones, daub and shards were found on the field between Obříství and the gardening centre at adistance of ca. 30 m southwest of the road Archive ARUP 15 Obříství Br D– Ha A Weights in the shape of rounded trun‑ cated pyramids with abore ‑hole and with adimple on the top were found within the boundaries of the village under unknown circumstances Archive ARUP 89JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ N° Cadastral area Position Dating Finds Bibliography 16 Obříství Kautschken Br D– Ha A Afind of weights prior to 1900 Archive ARUP 17 Obříství Na Štěpáně Br D– Ha A Field walking shard assemblage Zápotocký 1962, 630 18 Obříství Lamberk Br D– Ha A Acremation grave– the urn was found during the construction of aroad in the late 19th century Archive ARUP 19 Obříství Dušníky BrD Pottery fragments Jiráň 1991, 93; Sklenář 1985, tab.LXXII:5,6, LXX:17, LXVIII:29 20 Obříství Na Štěpáně Ha A1 Asettlement pit was documented in 1949 during the rescue excavation in greenhouses Koutecký– Spur‑ ný 1999, 314–315 21 Obříství Dušníky Ha B Afraction of aconical bowl Sklenář 1985, LXXI:43 22 Obříství Dušníky Ha B Shards from the cultural layer found in the sewer line Šmahelová 2009 23 Obříství village square BrD– Ha B Four settlement pits that were carved into alluvial loam with athickness of up to 100 cm were documented in the trench for the water supply that was being dug on the village square; The Feature No. 7, which contained ade‑ position of river shells, was dated into earlier to middle period, while the re‑ maining features, some of which bore traces of fire activity, were dated to the period between the peak period and the Štítary phase Bartošková 1991 24 Obříství Semilkovice Ha B Aerial reconnaissance that was verified by field walking Gojda 1995 25 Libiš house n° 90 Br D– Ha A The bottom part of adouble ‑handled amphora that was found in 1901 Archive ARUP 26 Libiš house n° 22 Br D– Ha A Shards and animal bones in aprivate garden Sklenář 1982, 194 27 Libiš Na Medvě‑ du Br D– Ha A Graphiton coated and grooved shards of atray amphora and acup from sur‑ face collections that were carried out by K. Žebera in 1942 Sklenář 1982, 195 28 Libiš house n° 76 Br D– Ha A Asettlement pit was encountered du‑ ring the excavation of the drain trench contained several coarse shards deco‑ rated with finger impressions and also askulls of two or three deer with beau‑ tifully structured antlers Sklenář 1982, 195 29 Libiš Udlouhé meze Br D– Ha A Shards of large containers and earthen weights were discovered during the digging of awell in 1979 Archive ARUP 90 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 N° Cadastral area Position Dating Finds Bibliography 30 Libiš Utůně Br D– Ha A Shards decorated with finger impressi‑ ons and part of adouble ‑handled ves‑ sel was found during the construction of afactory in 1943 Archive ARUP 31 Libiš house n° 140 Br D– Ha A Acremation burial consisting of two large barrel shaped containers and abowl or aplate with twisted edges containing charred bones originating from the excavation for water supply in 1961 Sklenář 1982, 195 32 Libiš Elbe River Ha B Abronze flange hilted sword was found during dredging of the riverbed on the eastern bank ca. 100 m above the mouth of the Košátecký Creek Zápotocký 1969, 304 33 Tuhaň house n° 10 Br D– Ha A Asettlement pit was encountered in 2003 during an excavation of gas pi‑ peline trench Archive ARUP 34 Kly A. Lhot‑ ský’sfield Br D– Ha A Acremation grave comprising four vessels Sklenář 1966, 42/4a 35 Brozánky Br D– Ha B Multiple significant settlement and funeral activities of the Knovíz culture were documented in the cadastral area of the village Archive ARUP Tab.1: An overview of the documented activities and finds of the Knovíz culture in the microregion of interest. The numbers in the first column correspond with those of the map in Pl. 3/1. BiBliograPHy Arnold, B. 1988: Slavery in Late Prehistoric Europe: Recovering the Evidence for Social Structure in Iron Age Society. In: Cleselowitz, M.N.– Gibson, D.B. (eds.): Tribe and Polity in Late Prehistoric Europe. Demography, Production and Exchange in the Evolution of Complex Social Systems. New York, 179–192. Barber, E.J.V. 1992: Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton. Belanová ‑Štolcová, T.– Grömer, K. 2010: Loom ‑weights, Spindles and Textiles– Textile Production in Central Europe from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. In: Andersson Strand, E.etal.: North European Symposium for Archaeological TextilesX. Oxford, 9–20. Beneš, Z. 2013: Staronové nálezy zdoby laténské adoby římské zObříství, okr. Mělník. Úvahy osídelní komoře doby římské ve středním Polabí. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 17/2, 701–717. Beneš, A.– Kytlicová, O. 1991: Der Depotfund aus Temešvár. Die Entwicklung des südböhmischen Armringes am Ausgang der Mittelbronzezeit. Památky archeologické 82/1, 48–93. Bierbaum, G. 1942: Tägkeitsbericht des Landespflegers für Bodenaltertümer in Sachsen und des Landes‑ museums für Vorgeschichte in Dresden für die Zeit vom 1. IV. 1939 bis 31. III. 1942. Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Vorzeit 18, 212–225. Bouzek, J. 1981: Knovízské kostrové pohřby vkamenných skříňkách. Varia Archaeologica 2, 123–126. Bouzek, J. 1985: Kotázkám počátku doby železné ve střední Evropě. Archeologické rozhledy 37/1, 83–92. Bouzek, J. 1993: The shifts of the amber route. In: Dreslerová, D.– Beck, C.W.– Bouzek, J.: Amber in archaeology: proceedings of the second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology Liblice 1990. Praha, 141–146. 91JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ Bouzek, J. 1996: Pistiros as aRiver Harbour: Sea and River Transport in Antiquity and its Costs. In: Bouzek, J.– Domaradzki, M.– Archibald, Z. (eds.): Pistiros I. Excavation and Studies. Prague, 221–222. Bouzek, J. 2006: Kde leží hranice mezi lužickými skupinami východních aseverozápadních Čech akde hra‑ nice sknovízskou kulturou. In: Vita Archaeologica. Sborník Víta Vokolka. Hradec Králové– Pardubice, 49–54. Bouzek, J. 2010: The Eastern Amber Route between the Baltic and the Black Sea in Antiquity. Studia Hercynia 14, 95–101. Bouzek, J.– Koutecký, J. 1980: Mohylové aknovízské kostrové „pohřby“ vjámách ze severozápadních Čech. Památky archeologické 71, 360–432. Brejcha, R.2013: Hroby vsíti– ZAV části pohřebiště období popelnicových polí vObříství. Archeologické výzkumy vČechách 2012. Zprávy České archeologické společnosti, Supplément 89, 27–28. Briggs, D.N. 2003: Metals, Salt and Slaves: Economic Links between Gaul and Italy from the Eighth to the Late Sixth Centuries BC.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22/3, 243–259. Brunn, A.W. 1954: Die Steinpackungsgraber von Kothen. Berlin. Bukowski, Z. 1989: Szlaki handlowe zpołudnia na Pomorze w młodszej epoce brązu iwe wczesnej epoce żelaza. In: Malinowski, T. (ed.): Problemy kultury łużyckiej na Pomorzu. Słupsk, 185–208. Bukowski, Z. 1990: Critically about so ‑called Amber Route in the Odra and Vistula River Basins in the Early Iron Age. Archeologia Polona 28, 71–122. Chvojka, O.– Menšík, P.2014: Nové nálezy ze starší doby bronzové zjižních Čech. Studia archaeologica Brunensia 19/1, 95–111. Chvojka, O.– John, J.– Šálková, T. 2012: Nové nálezy jantaru zdoby bronzové vjižních Čechách. In: Kujovský, R.– Mitáš, V. (eds.): Václav Furmánek adoba bronzová. Zborník ksedemdesiatym narodeninám. Nitra, 129–135. Chytráček, M. 2015: Belege für die Anwesenheit von Eliten des 6./5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Am Zusammenfluss von Elbe und Moldau in Mittelböhmen. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 90/1–2, 271–300. Clark, P.2004: The Dover Bronze Age Boat. Swindon. Clark, P.2005: Shipwrights, Sailors and Society in the Middle Bronze Age of NW Europe. Journal of Wetland Archaeology 5, 87–96. Čermák, J. 1921: Prehistorické nálezy na Mělnicku. Památky archeologické 33/1, 140–141. Čuláková, K.– Fleková, K.– Šmahelová, L. 2014: Záchranný archeologický výzkum na polykulturním sídlišti apohřebišti vObříství (okr. Mělník). In: Popelka – Šmidtová eds. 2014, 9–16. Dabrowski, J. 1993: Amber Trade in the Lusatian Culture. In: Dreslerová, D.– Beck, C.W.– Bouzek, J. (eds.): Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology Liblice 1990. Praha. Demek, J.etal. 1987: Zeměpisný lexikon– hory anížiny. Praha. Earleetal. 2011 = Earle, T.– Kreiter, A.– Klehm, A.– Klehm, C.– Ferguson, J.– Vicze, M.: Bronze Age Ceramic Economy: The Benta Valley, Hungary. European Journal of Archaeology 14/3, 419–440. Ernée, M. 2012: Jantar vČeské únětické kultuře– kpočátkům jantarové stezky [Bernstein in der böhmischen Aunjetitz ‑Kultur– Zu den Anfängen der Bernsteinstrasse]. Památky archeologické 103, 71–172. Ernée, M.– Smejtek, L. 1998: Die Bronzezeitlichen Gußformen in Nordwestböhmen. Most. Filip, J. 1959: Keltská civilisace ajejí dědictví. Praha. Fránaetal. 1997 = Frána, J.– Jiráň, L.– Maštalka, A.– Moucha, V.: Artefacts of Copper and Copper Alloys in Prehistoric Bohemia from the Viewpoint of Analyses of Element Composition. Památky archeologické– Supplément 3, 127–296. Fredengren, Ch. 2011: Where Wandering Water Gushes. The Depositional Landscape of the Mälaren Valley in the Late Bronze Age and Earliest Iron Age of Scandinavia. Journal of Wetland Archaeology 10, 109–135. Gojda, M. 1995: Nálezová zpráva kprůzkumu obce Obříství. Archiv nálezových zpráv ArÚ AV ČR, Praha,v.v.i. NZ č.j. 1151/95. 92 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 Hamonetal. 2009 = Hamon, C.– Ambert, P.– Laroche, M.– Guendon, J.‑L.– Rovira, S.– Bouquet, L.: Les outils à cupules, marqueurs de la métallurgie du district de Cabrières ‑Péret (Hérault) au Chalcolithique. Gallia Préhistoire, 51, 179–212. Hansen, S. 1991: Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der Urnenfelderzeit im Rhein -Main -Gebiet. Uni‑ versitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 5. Bonn. Harding, A.F. 1987: Fernhandel in der Bronzezeit: Analyse und Interpretation. Saeculum. Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte 38, 297–311. Harding, A.F. 2005: Interconnections between the Aegean and Continental Europe in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Moving beyond Scepticism. In: Galanaki, I.– Tomas, H.– Galanakis, Y.– Laffineur, R.(eds.): Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, Zagreb April 2005. Aegaeum 27, 47–56. Hennig, H. 1970: Die Grabund Hortfunde der Urnenfeldkultur aus Oberund Mittelfranken. Kallmunz. Herrman, F.R.1966: Die Funde der Urnenfeldkultur der Mittelund Südhessen. Berlin. Hirth, K.G. 1978: Interregional Trade and the Formation of Gateway Communities. American Antiquity 43, 35–45. Hrala, J.– Plesl, E. 1990: Nálezy jantaru vkulturách mladší doby bronzové ačasné doby železné vČechách. In: Malinowski, T. (ed.): Problemy kultury lużickej na Pomorzu. Słupsk, 209–226. Jančo, M. 2000: Nálezová zpráva kzáchrannému archeologickému výzkumu vObříství– Úžice– Chlumín– inženýrské sítě. Nepublikovaná nálezová zpráva. Archiv nálezových zpráv ArÚ AV ČR, Praha,v.v.i. NZ č.j. 6977/00. Jensen, J. 1982: The prehistory of Denmark. London. Jiráň, L. 1991: Vývoj osídlení vmladší apozdní době bronzové na území dnešního okresu Mělník [Die Ent‑ wicklung der Besiedlung in der Jung‑ und Spätbronzezeit auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Bezirkes Mělník]. Archeologické rozhledy 43, 90–119. Jiráň, L. 2000: Neobvyklé tvary bronzových nožů zobdobí popelnicových polí vČechách. Sborník Miroslavu Buchvaldkovi. Most, 111–115. Jiráň, L. 2002: Die Messer in Böhmen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VII/5. Stuttgart. Jiráň, L. ed. 2008: Doba bronzová. Archeologie pravěkých Čech 5. Praha. Jiráň, L.– Moucha, V. 1992: Knovízské sídliště abylanský žárový hrob vUhách (okr. Kladno). Archeologické rozhledy 44/3, 366–373. Kelly ‑Bucellati, M. 1990: Trade in Metals in the Third Millennium. North ‑eastern Syria and Eastern Anatolia. In: Matthiae, P.– van Loon, M.– Weiss, H. (eds.): Resurrecting the Past. AJoint Tribute to Adnan Bounni. Leiden, 117–130. Koutecký, D.– Spurný, V. 1999: Bylanské pohřebiště adalší nálezy zObříství uMělníka. Archeologické rozhledy 51/2, 300–316. Kristiansen, K. 1998: Europe before History. Cambridge. Kunow, J. 1983: Der römische Import in der Germania libera bis zu den Markomannenkriegen. Studien zu Bronzeund Glasgefäßen. Göttinger Schriften für Vor‑ und Frühgeschichte 21. Neumünster. Květina, P.– Hrnčíř, V. in print: (Ne)možnost archeologického poznání otroctví. Kyselý, R.2005: Archeologické doklady divokých savců na území ČR vobdobí od neolitu po novověk. Lynx 36, 55–101. Kytlicová, O. 1959: Příspěvek kotázce bronzových tepaných nádob zmladší apozdní doby bronzové. Památky archeologické 50/1, 120–154. Kytlicová, O. 2007: Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde in Böhmen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX/12. Stuttgart. Leven, K.‑H. ed. 2005: Antike Medizin. Ein Lexikon. München. Lingetal. 2014 = Ling, J.– Stos ‑Gale, S.– Grandin, L.– Billström, K.– Hjärtner ‑Holdar, E.– Persson, P.O.: Moving MetalsII. Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age Artefacts by Lead Isotope and Elemental Analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 106–132. 93JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ Ling, J. 2012: War Canoes or Social Units? Human Representation in Rock ‑Art Ships. European Journal of Archaeology 15/3, 465–485. Lynn, M. 1992: Technology, Trade and ‘‘ARace of Native Capitalists’’. The Krio Diaspora of West Africa and the Steamship 1852–95. Journal of African History 33, 421–440. Macháček, J. 2015: OVelké Moravě, archeologii raného středověku ionás samých. Archeologické rozhledy 67/3, 464–494. Maršálek, J. 2005: Kult hor ve starověké Číně. In: Mařík, J.– Maříková ‑Kubková, J. (eds.): Hora hor. Praha, 105–121. McGovernetal. 2013 = McGovern, E.– Gretchen P.– Hall, P.– Mirzoian, A. 2013: Ato ‘Nordic Grog.’ Danish Journal of Archaeology 2/2. Moucha, V. 1980: Corallium rubrum (L.) vlaténské jámě ve Zvoleněvsi (okr. Kladno). Archeologické rozhledy 32/5, 512–520. Nash, D. 1978: Territory and State Formation in Central Gaul. In: Green, D. – Haselgrove, C. – Springs M. (eds.): Social Organisation and Settlement. Oxford, 455–475. Nash, D. 1985: Celtic Territorial Expansion and the Mediterranean Worlds. In: Champion, T.– Megaw, V. (eds.): Settlement and Society. Aspects of Western European Prehistory in the First Millennium BC.Leicester, 45–67. Navarro, J.M. 1925: Prehistoric Routes between Northern Europe and Italy Defined by the Amber Trade. The Geographical Journal 66/6, 481–503. Neuhäslováetal. 2001: Mapa potenciální přirozené vegetace České republiky. Praha. Novotná, M. 2015: Analýza jantarových vzorků zlokality Obříství. Nepublikovaný rukopis zprávy, prove‑ dené vLaboratoři molekulové spektroskopie Vysoké školy chemicko ‑technologickév Praze. Kopie zprávy uložena varchivu AÚ AVČR Praha,v.v.i. Praha. Oka, R.– Kusimba, C.M.: 2008: The Archaeology of Trading Systems 1. Towards aNew Trade Synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Research 16/4, 339–395. Pastoreau, M. 2011: Medvěd. Dějiny padlého krále. Praha. Patterson, O. 1982: Slavery and Social Death. Cambridge. Pecinovská, M. 2014: Nálezová zpráva ozáchranném archeologickém výzkumu: Obříství (okr. Mělník) „Parcelace pozemku 75/1 azasíťování pozemků“. Nálezová zpráva č.TX‑2014‑5225, uložená vArchivu ARÚ AV ČR Praha. Pecinovská, M.– Malyková, D. 2011: Sídlištní objekty zpozdní doby bronzové vHorních Počaplech, okr. Mělník. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 15/1, 291–300. Peške, L. 1975: Osteologický materiál zknovízského mohylníku vLevousích. Archeologické rozhledy 27, 628. Píč, J.L. 1897: Hromadný nález bronzů uJenšovic. Památky archeologické 17, 693–702. Pleiner, R.1978: Směna surovin avýrobků. In: Pleiner, R.– Rybová, A. (eds.): Pravěké dějiny Čech. Praha, 253–259. Plesl, E. 1993: Zur Frage des Bernsteinvorkommens während der Urnenfelderperiode in der Tschechoslowa‑ kei. In: Dreslerová, D.– Beck, C.W.– Bouzek, J.: Amber in Archaeology: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology Liblice 1990. Praha, 164–170. Popelka, M.– Šmidtová, R.eds. 2014: Výsledky archeologického výzkumu polykulturní lokality Obříství. Praha. Primas, M. 1997: Bronze Age Economy and Ideology: Central Europe in Focus. Journal of European Archaeology 5/1, 115–130. Pydyn, A. 1999: Exchange and Cultural Interactions. AStudy of Long -distance Trade and Cross -cultural Contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Central and Eastern Europe. BAR International Series 813. Oxford. Reinecke, P.1965: Mainzer Aufsätze zur Chronologie der Bronzeund Eisenzeit. Bonn. Renfrew, C.– Bahn, P.2002: Archeologia. Teorie, metody, praktyka [Archaeology– Theory, Methods and Practice]. Warszawa. Rottländer, R.C.A. 1975: Der Bernstein und seine Bedeutung in der Ur‑ und Frühgeschichte. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 4, 11–32. 94 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2 Salač, M. 1997: Kvýznamu Labe pro česko ‑saské kontakty vdobě laténské (úvod do problematiky)[Die Elbe und die Kontakte zwischen Böhmen und Sachsen in der Latènezeit (Einfürung in die Problematik)]. Archeologické rozhledy 49, 462–494. Shennan, S. 1993: Commodities, Transactions and Growth in the Central‑European Early Bronze Age. Journal of European Archaeology 1/2, 59–72. Sherrat, A.G. 1993. What would aBronze ‑Age World System Look Like? Relations between Temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in Later Prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1/2, 1–57. Schmidt, V. 1893: Osamocený hrob skostrou uHolubic. Památky archeologické 16, 374–378. Schönfelder, M. 1994: Bear ‑Claws in Germanic Graves. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13/2, 217–227. Simon, K. 1979: Glättmusterverzierte Keramik der frühen Latènezeit von Grosstorkowitz. Ausgrabungen und Funde 24, 19–34. Sklenář, K. 1966: Vlastivědné muzeum vMělníku. Katalog pravěké sbírky I. Zprávy Československé společnosti archeologické– Supplément 2. Praha. Sklenář, K. 1982: Pravěké nálezy na Mělnicku aKralupsku. Archeologický místopis okresu Mělník vpravěku arané době dějinné. Mělník. Sklenář, K. 1994: Pravěké nálezy na Mělnicku aKralupsku: archeologický místopis okresu Mělník vpravěku arané době dějinné. 1. řada oprav adoplňků. Mělník. Sklenář, K. 1998: Pravěk na soutoku. Nejstarší osudy Mělnické kotliny ajejího sousedství. Mělník. Sklenářová, Z. 2010: Půdorys pravěkého domu ze Sobčic (okr. Jičín) aotázka jeho datace. Živá archeologie 11, 126–131. Smejtek, L. 2011: Osídlení zdoby bronzové vKněževsi uPrahy[Bronze Age Settlement at Kněževes near Prague]. Praha. Smejtek, L.– Lutovský, M.– Militký, J. 2013: Encyklopedie pravěkých pokladů vČechách. Praha. Spurný, V. 1948: Problém kostrových hrobů vknovízské kultuře. Nepublikovaná disertační práce, Univerzita Karlova vPraze. Stahl, Ch. 2006: Mitteleuropäische Bernsteinfunde von der Frühbronzebis zur Frühlatènezeit: ihre Verbreitung, Formgebung, Zeitstellung und Herkunft. Dettelbach. Stjernquist, B. 1985: Methodische Überlegungen zum Nachweis von Handel aufgrund archäologischer Quellen. In: Düwel, K.– Jahnkuhn, H.– Siems, H.– Timpe, D. (eds): Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vorund frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittelund Nordeuropa, I. Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Göttingen, 56–83. Stocký, A. 1928: Čechy vdobě bronzové. Praha. Šmahelová, L. 2009: ZAA 14776/2009. Archiv Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha,v.v.i. Šteffl, J. 2014: Depoty zobdobí popelnicových polí vČechách aSasku. Plzeň. Štiková, E. 1981: Mužský uMnichova hradiště– pravěká skalní pevnost. Praha. Thompson, E.A. 1960: Slavery in Early Germany. In: Finley, M.I. (ed.): Slavery in Classical Antiquity. Camb‑ ridge, 17–29. Thrane, H., 1975: Europæiske forbindelser: bidrag til studiet af fremmede forbindelser iDanmarks yngre bronzealder (periode IV -V). National Museum, Archaeological ‑Historical series 16. Copenhagen. Tomas, J. 1971: Labský obchod v Litoměřicích do Bílé Hory. Rozpravy Národního technického muzea 46, 137–142. Tomášek, M. 2007: Půdy České republiky. Praha. Torbrügge, W. 1966: Die bayerischen Inn ‑Funde. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 25, 16–69. Trefný, M.– Slabina, M. 2015: Knejdůležitějším aspektům architektury, hmotné kultury akvýznamu halštatského hradiště vMinicích (Kralupy nad Vltavou, okr. Mělník). Archeologické rozhledy 67/1, 45–78. Trigger B.C. 2003: Understanding Early Civilizations. AComparative Study. Cambridge. Unger, J. 2015: Nálezová zpráva ozáchranném archeologickém výzkumu: Zálezlice– stavba Protipovodňová hráz. Nálezová zpráva č.TX‑2015‑3834, depon. v archivu ARÚ AV ČR Praha. 95JIŘÍ UNgER– MONIKA PECINOVSKÁ Vandkilde, H. 1996: From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications, xxxii. Venclová, N. 1990: Prehistoric Glass in Bohemia. Praha. Waldhauser, J. 1990: Sozioökonomische zu den nordböhmischen nichtkeltischen Gruppen von Podmokly und Kobyly. Archeologia Polski 35, 87–111. Webb, J.M. 2015: Identifying Stone Tools Used in Mining, Smelting, and Casting in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus. Journal of Field Archaeology 40/1, 22–36. Zápotocký, M. 1962: Pec na pálení vápna na starořímském sídlišti uObříství. Archeologické rozhledy 14, 630–635. Zápotocký, M. 1969: Kvýznamu Labe jako spojovací adopravní cesty. Památky archeologické 60/2, 277–366. Jiří Unger Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha,v.v.i. Letenská 4, CZ‑118 01, Praha 1 [email protected] Monika Pecinovská Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha,v.v.i. Letenská 4, CZ‑118 01, Praha 1 [email protected]